I might get the C200

[bobo3]

I got one early August its been flat out amazing. The images even in 4k 8-bit are stunning (surprisingly good DR and this is coming from a guy who used to shoot only Epic-W). And Canon is close if not tied with Arri for making cameras that are so easy (and fun) to work with. 2 fully charged lightweight BP-60s and you can go a whole day.

Remember the stunning beautiful Blue Ruin by Jeremy Saulnier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwzTUzmXto

Shot entirely on the "weak" 8-bit 1080 codec. ?

[webrunner5]

29 minutes ago, bobo3 said:

I got one early August its been flat out amazing. The images even in 4k 8-bit are stunning (surprisingly good DR and this is coming from a guy who used to shoot only Epic-W). And Canon is close if not tied with Arri for making cameras that are so easy (and fun) to work with. 2 fully charged lightweight BP-60s and you can go a whole day.

Remember the stunning beautiful Blue Ruin by Jeremy Saulnier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwzTUzmXto

Shot entirely on the "weak" 8-bit 1080 codec. ?

Yeah somehow the C100's seem to do well in 8bit also LoL. Doesn't seem to make any sense scientifically, but Canon must have some secret sauce they use. Damn if I know. Defies logic.

[Mark Romero 2]

The mp4 codec of the c200 looks pretty darn good in this comparison video:

 

[Oliver Daniel]

11 hours ago, BenEricson said:

Purely image quality wise, the C200 or C300ii just looks way better though. The skin tones are close to Arri. It depends what you shoot I suppose.

This is the reason why my interest peaked in the C200. The overall feel of the image seems another level in comparison. There's an extra sauce in there. 

 

16 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

I feel like unless you really need that RAW internally, the EVA 1 is better in every way except auto focus ?

The EVA1 is still on my radar, it's an awesome camera. Just exploring the C200 from being astounded with the quality of the files.

It's the Canon RAW Light storage which seems a bit scary once you do the math! 

 

[Mmmbeats]

Is there a RAW out to external workflow that gives you reasonable files?  Can the Atomos recorders covert RAW to 10 bit video on the fly? 

[webrunner5]

5 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

This is the reason why my interest peaked in the C200. The overall feel of the image seems another level in comparison. There's an extra sauce in there. 

It's the Canon RAW Light storage which seems a bit scary once you do the math! 

 

Yeah you can just about guarantee that Canon will never let you do the new BMD BRaw thing in any of their cameras. Especially the Canon C200. That would admit their Raw sort of sucks storage space wise, which it does. But that was par for the course for Raw before this new BM Codec..

[thebrothersthre3]

Before now the C200 was very appealing to me. It has a RAW option, and when that isn't convenient, the 8 Bit looks very good. 

With the XT3 and BM Pocket 4k out its not as appealing to me. 

Still has that traditional cinema body though. 

[webrunner5]

Somebody, I don't know who, is going to come out with a PK4 type camera in a FS5, C100 body for 3500 bucks and it is going to be game on for a lot of people. You know it will happen. I mean a real camera, ready to shoot, not one that you have to buy a bunch of stuff for it. Sure it won't have IBIS maybe but.. No reason for these too small mirrorless bodies for a somewhat dedicated video camera like the GH5, GH5s, PK4 is. Heck they could cost only 2500 bucks, why not.

[thebrothersthre3]

20 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Somebody, I don't know who, is going to come out with a PK4 type camera in a FS5, C100 body for 3500 bucks and it is going to be game on for a lot of people. You know it will happen. I mean a real camera, ready to shoot, not one that you have to buy a bunch of stuff for it. Sure it won't have IBIS maybe but.. No reason for these too of small mirrorless bodies for a somewhat dedicated video camera like the GH5, GH5s, PK4 is. Heck they could cost only 2500 bucks, why not.

Yeah I guess it just depends who will wants to sabotage their camera line first. 

I mean its pretty cool to have the option to rig a camera up, and then also have the option to "almost" put it in your pocket and go anywhere with it. Though some people have no need for the pocket part. 

[webrunner5]

Yeah there is a no good answer unless you have lots of money to have the low and high end of the same brand. I think like @mercer  wants to do , have a bigger camera for dedicated shots, and a small one you can keep in the glove compartment is the way to go, not counting your Smartphone.

[currensheldon]

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Yeah I guess it just depends who will wants to sabotage their camera line first. 

I mean its pretty cool to have the option to rig a camera up, and then also have the option to "almost" put it in your pocket and go anywhere with it. Though some people have no need for the pocket part. 

Really true on the cannibalization. Give me a GH5 with MFT mount in a smaller EVA-1 body (internal NDs + XLRs) and that would be good for me (maybe another stop of useable ISO to get it to 3200 or so). 

Fuji could do it, since they have nothing to protect, but not looking likely in the next year or so (or maybe ever). They also have those amazing affordable cinema lenses. 

 

[thebrothersthre3]

6 minutes ago, currensheldon said:

Really true on the cannibalization. Give me a GH5 with MFT mount in a smaller EVA-1 body (internal NDs + XLRs) and that would be good for me (maybe another stop of useable ISO to get it to 3200 or so). 

Fuji could do it, since they have nothing to protect, but not looking likely in the next year or so (or maybe ever). They also have those amazing affordable cinema lenses. 

 

Yeah Fuji could jump into cinema cameras. I could definitely see them taking from Canon. An XT3 in a  bigger body with internal RAW, that would do it. 

[Oliver Daniel]

@DBounce When using teh C200 with the Ronin-S / Glidegear - do you encounter any problems? Limitations? 

[DBounce]

54 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

@DBounce When using teh C200 with the Ronin-S / Glidegear - do you encounter any problems? Limitations? 

Limitations...? well, even with the monitor attached, the Ronin-S's powerful motors can stabilize the C200. It is top heavy however, and so when you do the calibration test it will not be 100% balanced. The Ronin-S will adjust for this imbalance with sheer torque, so from a footage stability standpoint all is good. I think the combination works well. But be aware, there is a penalty when it comes to battery life. It's still good, and you will easily get upwards of four hours, but, if you can get the monitor off the top of the camera you can balance perfectly. Another solution may be to add counterweights. 

[Oliver Daniel]

18 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Limitations...? well, even with the monitor attached, the Ronin-S's powerful motors can stabilize the C200. It is top heavy however, and so when you do the calibration test it will not be 100% balanced. The Ronin-S will adjust for this imbalance with sheer torque, so from a footage stability standpoint all is good. I think the combination works well. But be aware, there is a penalty when it comes to battery life. It's still good, and you will easily get upwards of four hours, but, if you can get the monitor off the top of the camera you can balance perfectly. Another solution may be to add counterweights. 

Thanks for sharing.

Trying to way up if it's too much of "a pain in the ass" when there's other less painful solutions.  Saw a video of someone using a Fujifilm X-T3 with Ninja V, that looks pretty nifty! 

I've heard that the Tilta G2X is a better fit for the C200 - wish i could just go somewhere and try all this stuff out! ?

Overall my needs have changed a bit. I'm in less need of extensive HFR and in more need of great colours, motion cadence and data rich files. Still using the GH5 more than anything else, it's a hard camera to beat for the price! No one is complaining. ?

 

[DBounce]

2 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

Thanks for sharing.

Trying to way up if it's too much of "a pain in the ass" when there's other less painful solutions.  Saw a video of someone using a Fujifilm X-T3 with Ninja V, that looks pretty nifty! 

I've heard that the Tilta G2X is a better fit for the C200 - wish i could just go somewhere and try all this stuff out! ?

Overall my needs have changed a bit. I'm in less need of extensive HFR and in more need of great colours, motion cadence and data rich files. Still using the GH5 more than anything else, it's a hard camera to beat for the price! No one is complaining. ?

 

I agree, the GH5 and S variant are both fantastic for video. X-T3 works well with the Ninja V, but the internal footage is also good when you want to travel light. Granted my personal experience with the Fujis did not go as intended. I can tell you while they worked, they were a lot of fun. I'm hopeful that the Nikon Z6 will live up to the usually high Nikon standards and become my new daily driver. I am still keeping an eye on the P4k, but that's more of niche camera imo. There are always tradeoffs. The Panasonic offerings are a good balance of features, price and performance. 

[austinchimp]

51 minutes ago, DBounce said:

I agree, the GH5 and S variant are both fantastic for video. X-T3 works well with the Ninja V, but the internal footage is also good when you want to travel light. Granted my personal experience with the Fujis did not go as intended. I can tell you while they worked, they were a lot of fun. I'm hopeful that the Nikon Z6 will live up to the usually high Nikon standards and become my new daily driver. I am still keeping an eye on the P4k, but that's more of niche camera imo. There are always tradeoffs. The Panasonic offerings are a good balance of features, price and performance. 

From my experience of having used the GH5 extensively and now a new X-T3 user, the X-T3 files blow the GH5 away in H265. The colours, as everyone knows, are just superb and so much easier to get to a good point.

Howeverso far I'm finding that the GH5 feels so much more solid and more suited to a professional video setting. Maybe I haven't gotten used to the Fuji yet, but it's certainly not as solid and the controls for the GH5 always seem great for video use. My main problem is IBIS if you use a lot of handheld. The Panasonic is a million miles ahead when it comes to stabilisation. If you're using a gimbal then maybe it's not an issue though, but I personally loved the freedom of going handheld with the GH5 and getting stability similar to a tripod or at least something comparable to a much heavier or shoulder mounted camera. 

[thebrothersthre3]

1 minute ago, austinchimp said:

From my experience of having used the GH5 extensively and now a new X-T3 user, the X-T3 files blow the GH5 away in H265. The colours, as everyone knows, are just superb and so much easier to get to a good point.

Howeverso far I'm finding that the GH5 feels so much more solid and more suited to a professional video setting. Maybe I haven't gotten used to the Fuji yet, but it's certainly not as solid and the controls for the GH5 always seem great for video use. My main problem is IBIS if you use a lot of handheld. The Panasonic is a million miles ahead when it comes to stabilisation. If you're using a gimbal then maybe it's not an issue though, but I personally loved the freedom of going handheld with the GH5 and getting stability similar to a tripod or at least something comparable to a much heavier or shoulder mounted camera. 

Agreed. Its hard to go without IBIS after having it in the GH5. Being able to slap an old 50 1.4 lens on and get steady footage is amazing. 

That said I am sticking with the Fuji, auto focus is amazing and colors are definitely better if you like out of the box color. 

[Mark Romero 2]

14 minutes ago, austinchimp said:

From my experience of having used the GH5 extensively and now a new X-T3 user, the X-T3 files blow the GH5 away in H265.

I am wondering / hoping this might be a bit of hyperbole. Maybe you can elaborate on this a bit

yes, I have been impressed with what I have seen of the colors coming from the X-T3 (in particular using the eterna profile).

But it seems to me that the colors coming from the Panasonic are pretty good as well.

Is it really that much of a time-saver to get pleasing results from the X-T3 compared to the GH5? For instance, in 4K 60p is the 10-bit 4:2:0 of the X-T3 better than the 8-bit 4:2:2 out of the GH5???

Thanks in advance for any elaboration you can provide.

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Is it really that much of a time-saver to get pleasing results from the X-T3 compared to the GH5? For instance, in 4K 60p is the 10-bit 4:2:0 of the X-T3 better than the 8-bit 4:2:2 out of the GH5???

https://www.diyphotography.net/fujifilm-x-t3-vs-panasonic-gh5-how-do-they-compare-for-video-shooting/